[dunewalker]

Not pointing fingers at any particular poster, but generally there seems to be almost a Pavlovian response that "pure self-sufficiency" is impossible. This may be true, but it is over-emphasized. The pendulum of American culture has swung so far to the extreme opposite of self-sufficiency that there is no danger of over-achieving in this regard. Even the most extremely self-sufficient attitude/intent obviously will fall short to some degree, but the effort doesn't need belittling, it needs more encouragement. There is almost universal dismissal of the "heading back into the wilderness" approach. Being an idealist I tend to strive for the extreme result in any endeavor but being also a realist I'm willing to settle for the merely possible. To claim that "pure self-sufficiency is impossible" is a defeatist attitude. I'll look forward to sharing efforts, when push comes to shove, with folks like SCF and Patience who have gotten a lot closer than most. Shared efforts work best when team members are prepared.

[hardtootell-2]

The point being that the easy way would be to drive along to the exhaust centre and get it fixed, by using the DIY philosophy I've cut my costs significantly and more importantly learnt how it works.

That's a good point.

I have my moments of self-sufficient discovery fixing plumbing, roofing, making stuff out of wood, etc. I'm more of a natural mechanic - nuts/bolts - type than a creative mind/building something out of a pile of 'nothing'.

I am repeatedly shocked by my peers (meaning men my age) inability to do stuff for themselves. Even changing the oil on their own car, brake pads, putting in a new 110VAC electrical outlet, fixing a clogged drain, fixing a gutter, etc.

.

I agree and have seen it too. It is shocking to see an intelligent grown man who can barely change a lightbulb or check his oil. So much affluence (credit driven) has resulted in a loss of skills. People wont even try to do simple things for themselves. They are increasingly vulnerable in that regard.

[SpringCreekFarm]

Yes it is defeatist to say that total self-sufficiency is impossible but honestly it really and truly is. Especially if you consider that the real pioneers of years past had a clean environment to live off of. Nowadays our environment is so polluted that trying to follow in those footsteps can make you sick or kill you. I agree that it will take many people trying to be self-sufficient to form communities that are self-reliant. I'd rather it be that way anyway because I'd not like to be the "Grizzly Adams" type. We need communites to be self-sufficient.

[hillsidedigger]

In another sense self-sufficiency after a point is easy for a year, 5 years or even 20 years if enough stuff is accumulated initially, although that could cost a lot including the land and a dwelling.

[Pops]

Good stuff on this page, let me address this to the folks intent on dissuading others from striving for some measure of self sufficiency.

I often wonder at the near anger which greets any poster here who mentions trying to be more self-sufficient, a term I take to simply mean less dependent.

It's as if the idea is to go live on the moon - isn't that tactic called a straw man argument?

I think most reasonable people who have read enough on the subject of PO to be convinced of it's possibility have an idea in the back of their head how more expensive and/or less available energy could change their life. Those changes probably have to do with all the Things and Services provided in one way or another by the energy slaves we've become so use to lately. Making changes of whatever kind and extent before they become scarce seems prudent.

Planting a garden, buying gold or bonds, harvesting rainwater, going back to school, weatherizing your house, angling for a better job, buying a bike, learning to make repairs, installing a roof-full of PVs and a million other things are all strategies we rich world citizens can use to become a tiny bit less dependent on our ubiquitous cheap energy infrastructure.


So instead of yet another pointless argument over whether complete and TOTAL independence from any other human, human invention/discovery/by-product or castoff of the last several thousand years is possible, why not talk about the psychology of why and or how you aren't or are, trying to become less dependent on cheap oil?

[Roy]

Just wondering -- how did you learn how to "do that stuff" originally? Did you have a relative or friend teach you how to fix stuff, or did you just get the manual and figure out stuff yourself? (These days, it's amazing how useless manuals often are.)

No problem.

My dad liked to restore old cars while I was growing up. But he wasn't interested in having an apprentice. When I would help as a kid it involved me either scraping gaskets, sorting bolts, or sanding something. None of the fun stuff. Besides he always got mad when he did that type of work so I learned to stay out of the garage mostly if he was working on something. Often wrenches and curse words would be flying and hammers banging. Not really an ideal learning environment.

When I started my own projects I would ask for help and he would say:" Help? Read the f'ng manual" and then he'd tell me a story about the first engine he rebuilt.... You know, uphill three miles through 5 feet of snow, barefoot... That type of thing.

I didn't realize it at the time but he helped me learn how to learn and not be intimidated by something mechanical (within reason-- no jet aircraft in my repertoire). For some people doing is the best way of learning and I'm one of those people.

Over time an ability develops to sort of figure things out, mainly from practice and understanding basic principals. I started with bicycles, skateboards, go carts, mini-bikes, fishing reels, motorcycles, cars, high performance cars, high end mountain bikes, a rice mill, a super-critical fluid extraction unit, troubleshooting fiber optic cable installations, you name it.

Now its servers and networks to make a living, when I'm not fixing stuff at the house.

That general skill has served me well in many different jobs and opened many a door. Not to mention saved lots of $$ and provided a great deal of satisfaction as well as some busted knuckles and grease under my fingernails.

[Pops]

5 Rules is one of my favorite threads in PFTF because it goes right to different outlooks, some are Zen-like (I guess) some Golden Ruleish, some, like mine, are nuts and bolts.

I'm also one of those people who are Handy, which simply means I figured out way back that odds are good that I'll not screw something up so bad it will cost me more to have my mistakes repaired than call a "pro". Obviously that and the fact my hobbies are of the hands-on/making things type make me lean toward a DIY lifestyle as opposed to that of a commodities trader for example, not a better position necessarily, just one better suited to me..

Just as an example, I have some little savings spread around in several IRAs and it gives me really no piece of mind. It is in cash and worth much less than it once was but at least I know what it will be worth at the next statement but like all savings once it is unsaved it's gone.

It may seem strange to some but my little tractor with 1200-something hours on it makes me feel much more... secure (?) than it's value in cash of whatever type.
Any and all of my tools (along with my few skills) are worth many times their original value in what they can save me by doing things myself and what they can earn me doing for others. I'm not talking about in some Mad Max future but today.

So as it turns out I am more self sufficient than if I relied solely on a job and the marketplace to provide all my needs

[SpringCreekFarm]

Good stuff on this page, let me address this to the folks intent on dissuading others from striving for some measure of self sufficiency.

I often wonder at the near anger which greets any poster here who mentions trying to be more self-sufficient, a term I take to simply mean less dependent.

It's as if the idea is to go live on the moon - isn't that tactic called a straw man argument?

Well if you're referring to my post then please accept my most humble apology for being not only defeatist but also for throwing up a strawman to boot.

I would not ever dissuade anyone from trying to be more self-sufficient in fact it is what I'm mostly on this site for....solutions to the elusive self-sufficient lifestyle.

For those who believe like Polyanna or the "the little train that could" that anything is possible, I say go for it and when you have all the answers, please write a book and tell us all how you are going to to it and keep it when you do get there. Thanks, I'm all eyes and ears, callouses, cuts and bruises to boot.

PS. I consider myself to be a doer....btw.

[dunewalker]

SCF, any criticism you've offered against the pollyana "self-sufficiency" has been couched in credibility as you're possibly the most inspirational "doer" on this site. It's easy to listen to someone that's got dirty hands, difficult to tolerate an armchair general...

[JJ]

18-25 or so worked for an old man (he was 65 at the time) who always told me stories about how poor he used to be. He NEVER threw anything away, and showed me countless tricks to repairing things. If he saw something in the trash, he'd take it for his "bidniss". He was a colorful old man (he was also a big Edgar Cayce fan).

[hardtootell-2]

Good stuff on this page, let me address this to the folks intent on dissuading others from striving for some measure of self sufficiency.

I often wonder at the near anger which greets any poster here who mentions trying to be more self-sufficient, a term I take to simply mean less dependent.

It's as if the idea is to go live on the moon - isn't that tactic called a straw man argument?

I think most reasonable people who have read enough on the subject of PO to be convinced of it's possibility have an idea in the back of their head how more expensive and/or less available energy could change their life. Those changes probably have to do with all the Things and Services provided in one way or another by the energy slaves we've become so use to lately. Making changes of whatever kind and extent before they become scarce seems prudent.

Planting a garden, buying gold or bonds, harvesting rainwater, going back to school, weatherizing your house, angling for a better job, buying a bike, learning to make repairs, installing a roof-full of PVs and a million other things are all strategies we rich world citizens can use to become a tiny bit less dependent on our ubiquitous cheap energy infrastructure.


So instead of yet another pointless argument over whether complete and TOTAL independence from any other human, human invention/discovery/by-product or castoff of the last several thousand years is possible, why not talk about the psychology of why and or how you aren't or are, trying to become less dependent on cheap oil?

That is right Pops! I couldn't agree more. Of course complete self sufficiency is difficult but it should not stop us from the noble pursuit of some intelligent measure of it. As for the response- that's OK too. This is an exploration of psychology. Its all good. I want to know what people think about this. As I pursue it myself, I have been confronted by all kinds of irrational, fear based attitudes from people clinging to the staus quo- afraid of positive change that they can't get their heads around. I am very quiet and discrete about by self sufficiency life style changes. I think only a few can understand and why make yourself a target for when TSHTF (love that acronym )

[hardtootell-2]

I have an outline of an idea that could help many of us be more self sufficient. So here it is in its raw form:

If you have a bit of cash and some land put a second dwelling up. This can be anything decent and livable. A rehabbed mobile home is a good candidate. Most farms allow for a second house for farm help. As we age we will be sicker and have a declining ability for hard work. Hopefully your doomstead is productive and established enough to feed more than one family. If it is you could look for a tenant family for the second dwelling that would be willing to exchange safe and decent lodging for work that you cannot do as easily. Imagine a nurse, her husband and their kid. Of course if you are really in decline this wouldn't work, but it could work in moderate decline cases.

Of course there are logistical problems to overcome but this kind of approach is IMHO a lot better than relying on the government or the medical establishment or a nursing home (eventually)

This is just an idea. I invite feedback

[mos6507]

I see a world breaking down due to overpopulation, environmental destruction, resource depletion, greed etc. No job can help anyone survive that. Only a dedicated pursuit of self sufficiency can IMHO

But we're not there yet. And self-sufficiency has a bad ROI as JD says. JD pisses me off, but he makes some good points. His main point about doomsteading is that self sufficiency requires land. Land is (generally) expensive. If you don't own it in cash, you have a mortgage. A mortgage is a debt load you have to pay off each month otherwise you lose the land. So unless you are making a profit selling organic produce, which requires a LARGE parcel, etc... then you are going to have to hold down a dayjob to cover the mortgage. Even if you don't have a mortgage, you'll have some utility bills (until you go completely offgrid) and property taxes. So very few people are in a position to not have a dayjob and be fulltime doomsteaders. A more realistic scenario is to keep your dayjob (assuming you can in this economy) and moonlight with the doomsteading. Just look at what RangerOne has accomplished on nights and weekends. I've managed to do a lot too, because I telecommute. But even if I didn't I'd still be able to do something. So a job is a necessary evil.

Now, my mom has her own business and I know how damn hard it is to juggle all those responsibilities. And despite her income, she relies on my dad's job in the car business for health insurance. My dad is over 70 and should be retired already, but he's stuck having to keep working for the benefits. My mom has all sorts of medical problems and not is about to drop out of society and roll the dice with herbs from some backyard forest garden. Not everybody has tinfoil attidues towards modern medicine. My mom would probably be dead if she hadn't had surgery for colon cancer. These are real people with real needs in their lives that are best met by taking full advantage of modern civilization, which means participating in the economy. So I really think people who let their mind go off on idealistic flights of fancy should come back to reality long enough to look at the world as it is and how most of us have to compromise to get the best possible deal for ourselves. Powerdown is a process. It's not something most of us are going to want to do in one fell swoop.

[hardtootell-2]

I see a world breaking down due to overpopulation, environmental destruction, resource depletion, greed etc. No job can help anyone survive that. Only a dedicated pursuit of self sufficiency can IMHO

Now, my mom has her own business and I know how damn hard it is to juggle all those responsibilities. And despite her income, she relies on my dad's job in the car business for health insurance. My dad is over 70 and should be retired already, but he's stuck having to keep working for the benefits. My mom has all sorts of medical problems and not is about to drop out of society and roll the dice with herbs from some backyard forest garden. Not everybody has tinfoil attidues towards modern medicine. My mom would probably be dead if she hadn't had surgery for colon cancer. .

You make lot of valid points. I agree with a lot of what you say. I just don't see the status quo working out for many of us in the long run. Look at the demographic squeeze that Boomers (thats Boomers not doomers ) are puttting on healthcare. Look at the funding state of medicare/medicaid.

My Mom is dead due to medical malpractice. She had conventional attitudes towards medicine.

Me- I'll keep my tinfoil. If I die a premature death it is more likely to be due to my own stupidity, not the arrogance of some doctor who graduated 30 yrs ago and hasn't read anything on medicine since.

[SpringCreekFarm]

SCF, any criticism you've offered against the pollyana "self-sufficiency" has been couched in credibility as you're possibly the most inspirational "doer" on this site. It's easy to listen to someone that's got dirty hands, difficult to tolerate an armchair general...

Thanks Dunewalker. I only try to offer glimpses of reality and not trying to discourage anyone.

From what I've read of this site in the last few years, my vote for who would be the most self-sufficient here would be Wisjim. At least he is one who has approached it closer than anyone else who has posted from what I read.

I'm speaking from experience when I say things are tougher than some would let on. I grew up on this farm but didn't take possesion of it as my own until I bought my aunt's half from her. ( My dad gave me his half of what the two of them inherited from my grandfather. ) There was no electricity at the barns and they were falling down to some extent.

Over the past 10 years or so that I've been living here, I've been building fences, fixing barns, putting in solar system in the barn because it is too far from the road. I've toiled to make my gardens fertile on a hard worn out clay. I'm a hand tool enthusiast and try to get the job done without electricity whenever possible.

I do all my own carpentry, electrical, plumbing, mechanical ( except on my honda engine ) on all my projects. I cut 15 face cords of firewood per year with a chainsaw and split it all by hand and haul it to the house ( a half mile ) with a small tractor. I’ve tried to use work horses but so far that has failed. I garden and do almost all the canning and preservation of the food myself with limited help from my spouse ( that’s a whole other bad story but whatever ). I really do think without a doubt that true self-sufficiency is not attainable in my area with what I have and who I have to work with. Other’s results may vary. I work a day job with computers which funds things I do. I have no debt because I got rid of that as fast as I could. I work short days in the winter but study a lot. I work seriously long hard hours in the summer time and there is never enough time to get everything done.

Since this thread is about the psychology of self-sufficiency, I believe I’ve addressed this issue sufficiently. Good luck.

Thanks again Dune for the kind words but like I said….Wisjim is the champ around here in my books and I look forward to reading his posts and learning something. One day if I ever get a car that won’t break me, I’ll offer to go visit Jim and help him out for a weekend. ( don’t you love people that invite themselves. LOL. ) My point is….Wisjim has been doing this stuff since the 1970’s!!!!!! It takes a long time and a lot of paycheques to get to where he says he is. ( Wisjim…jump in here please and correct me if I’m wrong. ) I’d hazard to guess that not even he is self-sufficient, but close to it.

For those who are trying to make a start of it, don’t be fooled into thinking that you can get there because you can’t. The best you can do is get as close to independence as possible which isn’t so bad and is very satisfying.

[dunewalker]

I have an outline of an idea that could help many of us be more self sufficient. So here it is in its raw form:

If you have a bit of cash and some land put a second dwelling up. This can be anything decent and livable. A rehabbed mobile home is a good candidate. Most farms allow for a second house for farm help. As we age we will be sicker and have a declining ability for hard work. Hopefully your doomstead is productive and established enough to feed more than one family. If it is you could look for a tenant family for the second dwelling that would be willing to exchange safe and decent lodging for work that you cannot do as easily...

You can't pursue self-sufficiency on the back of, and at the expense of, the self-sufficiency of others. In other words, a tenant/landlord relationship. Better to take them in as full land partners, then everyone can work toward the same goal, communal self-sufficiency.

[hardtootell-2]

I have an outline of an idea that could help many of us be more self sufficient. So here it is in its raw form:

If you have a bit of cash and some land put a second dwelling up. This can be anything decent and livable. A rehabbed mobile home is a good candidate. Most farms allow for a second house for farm help. As we age we will be sicker and have a declining ability for hard work. Hopefully your doomstead is productive and established enough to feed more than one family. If it is you could look for a tenant family for the second dwelling that would be willing to exchange safe and decent lodging for work that you cannot do as easily...

You can't pursue self-sufficiency on the back of, and at the expense of, the self-sufficiency of others. In other words, a tenant/landlord relationship. Better to take them in as full land partners, then everyone can work toward the same goal, communal self-sufficiency.

I disagree. I would be offering them a better deal (no rent/free food in exchange for some reasonable amount of semiskilled labor) than they could get elsewhere. It is not at their expense. It is simply a mutually beneficial arrangement. If they had the means to do it for themselves and wanted to- great. Since I had put up all the initial capital and work and vision the place and its profits would remain under my control.

[dunewalker]

I would be offering them a better deal (no rent/free food in exchange for some reasonable amount of semiskilled labor) than they could get elsewhere. It is not at their expense. It is simply a mutually beneficial arrangement. If they had the means to do it for themselves and wanted to- great. Since I had put up all the initial capital and work and vision the place and its profits would remain under my control.

That's great as far as it goes--of course it's a symbiotic relationship. Back to the psychology, part of "self-sufficiency" is the feeling of independence. What I'm saying is that a tenant can never achieve that feeling of independence, by nature of being a tenant. Unless, of course, independence is also defined as the ability to cut & run if circumstances warrant. That a landowner is not as free to do.

Bottom line, you are correct--I'll back off a bit.

[hardtootell-2]

I would be offering them a better deal (no rent/free food in exchange for some reasonable amount of semiskilled labor) than they could get elsewhere. It is not at their expense. It is simply a mutually beneficial arrangement. If they had the means to do it for themselves and wanted to- great. Since I had put up all the initial capital and work and vision the place and its profits would remain under my control.

That's great as far as it goes--of course it's a symbiotic relationship. Back to the psychology, part of "self-sufficiency" is the feeling of independence. What I'm saying is that a tenant can never achieve that feeling of independence, by nature of being a tenant. Unless, of course, independence is also defined as the ability to cut & run if circumstances warrant. That a landowner is not as free to do.

Bottom line, you are correct--I'll back off a bit.

No offense intended- but I think we all have some socialist psychology to deal with. My idea is crude with some logistical and psychological challenges. In a post peak world the perception that I might be exploiting someone will be the least of my worries. It is likely there will much more shocking examples of exploitation happening around us. I cannot easily achieve self sufficiency for myself, so how can I be responsible for someone elses achievement of it?

If the tenant/worker can find a better deal- they are likely to take it. On the other hand, I would not rule out a longer term relationship of profit sharing/land grants to someone I thought I could trust.- if prosperity shines on us.

A couple of bottom lines I work with- Is it legal? Can I live with my conscience? Is there a better way? Is it sustainable?

[jupiters_release]

Self-sufficiency is really a misnomer, the different cultures throughout history we consider self-sufficient couldn't have existed without the conditions of the 'world outside'. It's primitive to think we are at all separate from what goes on elsewhere. And it's counterproductive to gripe about the discord without if we never resolve the discord within. I believe true intelligence is action accordant with the infinite decontracted unknown, the origin of everything. Most times we operate out of our contracted 'self', caught in the image of reality, while real creation happens purely in the upstream, before the image.

Takuan Soho said:

Penetrating to a place where heaven and earth have not yet divided, where Yin and Yang have not yet arrived, I quickly and necessarily gain effect.